Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bal Raj Tuli, S.S.Sandhawalia and C.G.Suri JJ.
Swatantra Land And Finance Private Ltd.
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Revision No. 202 of 1969,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 27, 1974
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - REFERENCE TO DISTRICT JUDGE - LIMITATION - JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT JUDGE TO REJECT REFERENCE ON GROUND OF LIMITATION - WHETHER DISTRICT JUDGE CAN GO BEHIND REFERENCE AND DETERMINE WHETHER REFERENCE WAS MADE WITHIN TIME - WHETHER COLLECTOR ACTS AS AGENT OF GOVERNMENT WHILE MAKING REFERENCE - WHETHER COLLECTOR HAS POWER TO CONDONE DELAY IN MAKING APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE - WHETHER DISTRICT JUDGE CAN IGNORE REFERENCE IF IT IS MADE ON TIME-BARRED APPLICATION - WHETHER DISTRICT JUDGE HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY RESPONDENT AS TO VALIDITY OR MAINTAINABILITY OF REFERENCE APPLICATION - WHETHER DISTRICT JUDGE CAN REJECT REFERENCE IF IT IS FOUND THAT APPLICATION TO COLLECTOR WAS MADE BEYOND TIME PRESCRIBED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-company claimed that it had purchased some parcels of the acquired land through registered sale deeds dated March 28, June 28, November 11, 1963, and March 26, 1966, from the land-owners. The Managing Director of the Company was informed that Zamindars of the village were going to Ballabgarh to receive compensation, from the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). Palwal, in respect of the land acquired by the Government for the Gurgaon Canal Feeder. He went to Ballabgarh and came to know that the entire land, which the Company had purchased by various sale deeds, still stood in the names of land-owners and mutation in the name of the company had not been effected, with the result that the compensation in respect of that land was going to be paid to the recorded owners. He brought this fact of company s ownership of the land to the notice of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). The petitioner-company was, however, paid compensation in respect of the land, which had been mutated in its name, on August 30, 1967, which the Managing Director of the company received under protest. The compensation in respect of the land, which the petitioner-company alleged to have purchased and in respect of which mutations had not been effected was deposited by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) in the Treasury and was not paid to any one. The company thereupon filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) on October 5, 1967, for making a reference to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. The Sub Divisional Officer, acting as Collector, referred the application to the District Judge for decision under Section 19 of the Act. The District Judge entrusted that petition to the Additional District Judge, who issued notice to the State of Haryana under Section 20 of the Act. The State of Haryana raised various objections, one of them being that the reference was barred by time. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues :- 1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of this publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? 2. What improvements were effected by the claimant on the disputed land, and if so its effect? 3. Whether the inference is barred by time ? 4. Relief. The learned Additional District Judge decided issue No. 3 in favour of the respondent State and against the petitioner and, without recording any decision on the other issues, dismissed the petition as barred by time on December 27, 1968. The petitioner-company, has filed this revision petition against that order and the point for decision before this Bench is whether the Additional District Judge was right in dismissing the petition as barred by time?
Finding of the Court:
The Additional District Judge was right in dismissing the petition as barred by time.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Judge can go behind reference and determine whether reference was made within time? 2. Whether the Collector acts as agent of Government while making reference? 3. Whether the Collector has power to condone delay in making application for reference? 4. Whether the District Judge can ignore reference if it is made on time-barred application? 5. Whether the District Judge has jurisdiction to determine objections raised by respondent as to validity or maintainability of reference application? 6. Whether the District Judge can reject reference if it is found that application to Collector was made beyond time prescribed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The District Judge can go behind reference and determine whether reference was made within time. 2. The Collector does not act as agent of Government while making reference. 3. The Collector has no power to condone delay in making application for reference. 4. The District Judge cannot ignore reference if it is made on time-barred application. 5. The District Judge has jurisdiction to determine objections raised by respondent as to validity or maintainability of reference application. 6. The District Judge can reject reference if it is found that application to Collector was made beyond time prescribed.
Final Decision: Revision petition dismissed.
BAL RAJ TULI, J.
1. This petition has been referred to a Full Bench for decision in pursuance of the order made by a Division Bench of this Court doubting the correctness of the decision of an earlier Division Bench in Hari Krishan Khosla V/s. The State of Pepsu, ILR (1958) 1 Punj 854 : (AIR 1958 Punj 490).
2. The facts of the case are that the erstwhile State of Punjab issued notifications for the acquisition of some land under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, (hereinafter called the Act) situate in village Itmadpur, Tahsil Ballabgarh, District Gurgaon, for a public purpose, namely, construction of Gurgaon Canal Feeder along Agra Canal from RD-30,000 to RD-79,200. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on March 18, 1966, at Ballabgarh, to the persons present and notices under Section 12 (2) of the Act were issued to the other owners who were not present. The petitioner-company claimed that it had purchased some parcels of the acquired land through registered sale deeds dated March 28, June 28, November 11, 1963, and March 26, 1966, from the land-owners. The Managing Director of the Company was informed that Zamindars of the village were going to Ballabgarh to receive compensation, from the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). Palwal, in respect of the land acquired by the Government for the Gurgaon Canal Feeder. He went to Ballabgarh and came to know that the entire land, which the Company had purchased by various sale deeds, still stood in the names of land-owners and mutation in the name of the company had not been effected, with the result that the compensation in respect of that land was going to be paid to the recorded owners. He brought this fact of company s ownership of the land to the notice of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). The petitioner-company was, however, paid compensation in respect of the land, which had been mutated in its name, on August 30, 1967, which the Managing Director of the company received under protest. The compensation in respect of the land, which the petitioner-company alleged to have purchased and in respect of which mutations had not been effected was deposited by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) in the Treasury and was not paid to any one. The company thereupon filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) on October 5, 1967, for making a reference to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. It is not necessary to detail all the objections raised by the petitioner-company in its application. Suffice it to say that the claim was made for the enhancement of the compensation already paid and for the payment of the compensation at enhanced rate in respect of the land, which the company had purchased but mutation in respect of which had not been effected. The Sub Divisional Officer, acting as Collector, referred the application to the District Judge for decision under Section 19 of the Act. The District Judge entrusted that petition to the Additional District Judge, who issued notice to the State of Haryana under Section 20 of the Act. The State of Haryana raised various objections, one of them being that the reference was barred by time. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues :-
1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of this publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ?
2. What improvements were effected by the claimant on the disputed land, and if so its effect?
3. Whether the inference is barred by time ?
4. Relief.
3. The learned Additional District Judge decided issue No. 3 in favour of the respondent State and against the petitioner and, without recording any decision on the other issues, dismissed the petition as barred by time on December 27, 1968. The petitioner-company, has filed this revision petition against that order and the point for decision before this Bench is whether the Additional District Judge was
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
